The state Office of Telework Promotion and Broadband Assistance has published a map showing broadband penetration in Virginia. There is a broadband "gap," as one would expect. But I would argue that it's nothing to worry about -- a gap exists only because the bar for what constitutes cutting-edge broadband service is always getting raised.Personal cell phone coverage blankets nearly the entire state. Even the most lightly populated counties in the the Old Dominion have pockets of cell phone coverage. Broadband wireline is a little patchier but nearly every community of any size is connected. The gap today is between those who have access to "advanced" wireless mobile broadband and those who don't. That service is still limited, for the most part, to the state's largest metro areas. (Click on map for more legible image.)
But never fear. If the past is prologue, the telecom companies will first penetrate the densest most populated markets because that's where the biggest revenue gains and profit margins are. Then they will move into smaller communities. To ask them to do otherwise would be foolhardy. It's the cash generated by the early investments that make possible to make the later investments. Living in the countryside has its advantages and disadvantages. You get to see the stars at night. But, then, you have to wait for access to the latest broadband technology.
The other day I was looking for a current ADC map of Loudoun County.
ReplyDeleteI could not find an ADC map stand in several book or office supply stores.
It turns out ADC (Alexandria Drafting Co founded in 1956) closed their great downtown DC store. It looks like they are going out of business.
A victim of digital maps and GPS systems. A crying shame.
Looking for a substitute, I checked out the stand overflowing with Rand McNally ‘regional’ maps.
They only cover part of the ‘metro area.’
Then I saw this map and it hit home.
This map reminded me of those maps from the census bureau and other sources that are in Prof. Risse’s PowerPoint program that identifies The Clear Edge.
Guess what? The grey area on this map is about the same as the area inside SYNERGY’s Clear Edge.
With the end of gross excess (Mass OverConsumption, right?) coming around the corner this may be as far as high quality broad band ever goes without paying and arm and a leg.
The map people have decided there are not enough folks ‘out there’ to warrant making maps. (The Rand McNally map of Loudoun is a hack job – it shows the Gilbert’s corner roundabouts as an interchange.
Risse has demonstrated that there is plenty of vacant and underutilized land inside the Clear Edge for future Urban land uses for the foreseeable future at the densities those interested in setting up a new business or buying a new dwelling would find desirable.
Guess what? This map IS THE CLEAR EDGE.
CJC
We need more infrastructure to support most growth. Both Fairfax County and the Tysons landowners are struggling to find ways to pay for the infrastructure to support an urban Tysons Corner. I am not arguing that there would be no problems building infrastructure outside the clear edge, but transforming a suburban area into an urban one just might be too expensive for anyone to tackle. Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteTMT
CJC’s discussion of The Clear Edge reminds me of an observation I was planning to make:
ReplyDeleteAmong the thousands of remarks Ray “Bobcat” Hydra leaves around the Internet he recently asked:
“What is wrong with investing is Brazil if I get the highest return there?”
And
“What is wrong with doing exactly what I want on my farm?”
The answer is simple:
The problem with EVERYONE doing what they think is best for themselves in the short run is this:
The cumulative result of all those actions is often detrimental to the community. Dr. Risse discussed the Fallacy of Composition – what is good for one is not good for all – in The Shape of the Future.
No human society has survived with everyone doing what ever they wanted, when they wanted without regard to the impact on the community.
Hunter gather clans, bands and tribes had (and have) practices and customs as well as a governance structure to enforce them. Those who acted to the detriment of the community were left outside the compound for the lions. (Lions are much bigger and much nastier than bobcats.)
Agrarian societies had (and have) rules and customs as well as a governance to enforce them. In a fair society, those who act (acted) to the detriment of the society are (were) punished in proportion to the transgression. In other societies, there was no telling what the result would be.
For 8,000 years Urban societies have had constitutions, laws, rules and customs as well as a governance structure to enforce them.
In a complex Urban society the cumulative impact may be difficult to determine.
However, if ‘everyone’ invested in Brazil, there would be no investment in facilities for heath, safety or welfare of citizen except in Brazil. (Think extreme balance of payments deficit.)
If everyone did what every they wanted to do on their farm, without a fair allocation of costs, without regard to the impact on adjacent owners AND without regard to the cumulative impact on the communities that are impacted by the farm there would be no food or shelter. (This is what Mr. Bacon calls dysfunctional human settlement patterns.)
Utne Reader devoted the cover feature of the May - June issue to the topic of narcissism. It seemed like a strange topic until one considers the “me, me, me” ramifications of the current views of ‘freedom’ in the context of an Urban society.
I believe this is related to the recent thoughts by Observer concerning Selfish Anarchists and Conniving Anarchists.
AZA
AZA - Did you see my answer on Reston density that I obtained from the president of the Reston Citizens Association? The 13 persons per acre applies throughout Reston, including the Town Center, but not in the Reston Center for Industry and Government (RCIG), which was originally zoned as industrial.
ReplyDeleteHow would you define a fair allocation of costs? Incremental or fully distributed?
TMT
CJC, Interesting observation about this map demarcating the clear edge. If you go to the original map (and not my reproduction of it), you can zoom in for a close-up and closer analysis.
ReplyDeleteThe only anomaly would seem to be that arm stretching up Rt. 301 to Maryland. There's not much of anything on the Virginia side of the Potomac. That's *not* clear edge. But otherwise, you have an interesting hypothesis.
"But never fear. If the past is prologue, the telecom companies will first penetrate the densest most populated markets because that's where the biggest revenue gains and profit margins are. Then they will move into smaller communities. To ask them to do otherwise would be foolhardy."
ReplyDeleteRather naive. The big companies like Comcast and Verizon have had more than a decade to do what they say but have not yet. When they go for the profit margins, they insist that customers buy not just broadband but digital TV and other services. Business people in underserved and poor areas complain that they don't want to have to watch "Miss Congeniality" 75 times just to be able to have broadband for business.
A few years ago, the City of Philadelphia (home of Comcast) was so pissed at the lack of for-profit service by major carriers that they started their own broadband service. Admittedly, it had a lot of problems but it raises the question about whether broadband should be seen as a needed utility for the social good and companies should have their butts kicked to move faster into underserved areas. This is what happened back when the Bell system was in charge of phones. Unless you are in a rich area, chances are you are in a monopolized area which means you need some regs. Old Baby Bells are still paying taxes under this philosophy that so-called broadband independents and VOIP phone firms don't have to worry about. Sure Vonage is cheap but it doesn't have to pay the taxes to serve rural and inner city areas that the odler firms have to and should do.
Bacon, please, get out of the basement. Can I end your subscription to the Cato Institute? It would do you a world of good.
Peter Galuszka
Jim Bacon:
ReplyDeleteI agree about US 301 corridor, also the I-95 corridor is to over supplied south of Quantico USMC base. My observation related to the R= 20 to 30 Radius Band around the Centroid of the National Capital SubRegion. (Had to look that up to get the right Dr. Risse approved terminology.)
CJC
No broadband here. Someone ran a huge fiber optic cable in front of the farm, but I think it was military.
ReplyDeleteI never ever suggested that everyone should be able to do anything they wish.
ReplyDeleteBut that is a long way from enslaving someone in a perpetual state of agriculture that wont pay.
As for the remark about investing in Brazil, your economic ignorance is showing. The best thing I can do for my local community AND the global ecology is to make the most of what I have, both in investing and in purchasing.
Risse has postulated there is vacant land, he has not demonstrated it.
ReplyDeleteRisse has not identified the clear edge, because there is none. The clear edge is an invention of his imagination, and even he says their is only a logical location for a clear edge. This is, of course, utter nonsense which would lead to immense disparities in the value of adjacent properties, as Accurate has observed.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the end of gross excess is happening any time soon. In fact, the more wealth concentration we have, the more gross excess we will see.
ReplyDeleteThe cumulative result of all those actions is often detrimental to the community. Dr. Risse discussed the Fallacy of Composition –what is good for one is not good for all
ReplyDelete=========================
Yes, but this cuts both ways as I have explained and Risse refused to understand.
No individual ands no organization can do ANYTHING without having some negative effect on others.
That does not mean they have no right to do anything. It means only that they may not do something to others, that they would not want done to themselves.
When the cumulative rsesult of social actions is detrimental to individuals, how can the sum be anything. It dertrimental to society? At the very least, the detrimental cost to individuals must be subtracted from the alleged social benefit.
Without a net social benefit there is no reason for social action. This is government policy, which anyone can read on the GAO webpage.
If there is a net social benefit, then society ought to be willing to pay for it, in which case no individual will be required to give up, more than he gets. In fact, such a policy defines that exact situation.
It is the exact opposite of a social norm as Risse describes it, which is merely socialized stealing.
For a specific example, recall Rider's nutty and irresponsible le idea that we might fund education by CONFISCATING (his word) the profits of the advertising and entertainment industries.
If you are going to quote me, at least get the quotes accurate.
ReplyDeleteLions are bigger than bobcats, but I reject the notion they are "nastier". Both have a place and both do what they need to do, without regard to its effect on others.
ReplyDeleteThe bobcat I encountered was insane. What he did was outside the norm, even for predators.
But the example of society throwing.g people to the lions exemplifies exactly my point of society exacting a price on an individual, for the good of society, that no member would care to have exacted from themselves.
However, if ‘everyone’ invested in Brazil, there would be no investment in facilities for heath, safety or welfare of citizen except in Brazil. (Think extreme balance of payments deficit.)
ReplyDelete====>>================
This is a logical fallacy and economically false.
If the best available investment is in Brazil, then any other option returns less to the community.
If everyoone invests in Brazil and makes a lot of money, they will have more to spend on what they need locally.
If they invest their Brazil money locally, and make half as much, that means the taxes needed to support local infrastructure will have twice the bite.
Balance of trade is a shibboleth that means NOTHING. Trade is always balanced. I have smething you want and You have something I want. We trade.
Govt boundaries have nothing to do with it.
n a complex Urban society the cumulative impact may be difficult to determine.
ReplyDelete===>=>>>=========>>>>>
Well, then you cannot very well determine how much an individual should give up, to prevent the impact, can you?
f everyone did what every they wanted to do on their farm, without a fair allocation of costs, without regard to the impact on adjacent owners AND without regard to the cumulative impact on the communities that are impacted by the farm there would be no food or shelter.
ReplyDelete===><==============
This is among the stupidest sentences ever written.
First, farms contribute far more than they cost. If there actually was a fair allocation, farms would be profitable and you would not have to worry about them going away, and a having shortages.
By FAR the impact is BY adjacent owners and not ON them.
If I was ONLY allowed to do exactly AZ all my adjacent neighbors do, I would be a happy man.
But that's is not the case. I am held to a much higher standard than them, at my expense, and purely as an accident of history.
Said accident being that my wife's ancestors preserved their land better and longer than others, who exercised rights my wife has been denied ( had stolen, there being no fair trade offered, by whoever now has them.)
It seemed like a strange topic until one considers the “me, me, me” ramifications of the current views of ‘freedom’ in the context of an Urban society.
ReplyDelete=======>=>>===>>>=>=>>>
You clearly don't understand anything. It is the purpose of society to protect the "me me me" view, and to pprtect it EQUALLY so that no "Me" can take advantage of another.
And that INCLUDES the collective me that we call society.
I am perfectly happy to be in the scenery business, and provide valuable air and water cleaning services on the side, and even to house rabid wildlife, if that is what society wants, but those things cost money. I deserve a fair allocation of whatever society thinks those things are worth, just as I would expect to pay a fair allocation. I expect fair pay for the labor I expend to keep things as they apparently want them kept.
ReplyDeleteBut, a fair allocation is not what we have, far from it.
Therefore, what might happen if we had a fair allocation has no meaning to me every month when MY bills come due.
There is that me word again. I will be happy to give it up, just as soon as we pay the bills to "save our farms".
Until then anything AZA/CJC/EMR have to say is just so much hot air. When you have some idea what I do, then you can talk.
And, just so you clearly understand, without exception, every one of those neighbors you seem so worried I might negatively affect, the new ones anyway, by which I mean more recent than fifty years, every one of those new neigh ore is there as a result of making a killing, one way or another, off of the last fifty years of mass overconsumption.
ReplyDelete